Energy companies are pressing hard for the U.S. government to lift restrictions on exports of liquefied natural gas (LNG), with the American Petroleum Institute recently moving to expand its already robust lobbying force in Washington.

Market prices for LNG are typically higher abroad, and API’s member companies could reap vast profits overseas. But the fight is pitting them against another strong presence in Washington with whom they are sometimes allied: domestic users of their product, including DOW Chemical, who fear that opening up LNG exports to other nations will spike the price of the resource at home, thereby adding to their production costs..

In the past, LNG exports have been limited to countries with a free trade agreement with the U.S.; other nations can import American LNG only with the approval of the Department of Energy. Recently, DOE gave a shipping facility permission to export LNG to Japan, a victory for the oil-and-gas lobby. But many other requests are pending, on hold because of the policy debate.

The clash between the industries was the backdrop in January, when 15 senators co-sponsored the Expedited LNG for American Allies Act of 2013. The legislation, which has received bipartisan support, would allow U.S. LNG exports to NATO member states as well as Japan. These nations would take on free trading partner status with the U.S. for this purpose.

Predictably, the energy industry took a strong interest in the bill last quarter. The nine firms and groups that were on both sides of the issue combined to spend a total of nearly $14.2 million on lobbying in the first quarter of 2013.

One of the nine, API — a supporter of the bill — spent more than $7.3 million lobbying in 2012, and it employed 59 lobbyists from seven different organizations. A year earlier, amidst the debate over the Keystone Pipeline, spending rocketed to $8.6 million.

The trade group’s recent hiring of McGuireWoods LLP is one indication that the struggle for increased LNG exports will rage on in the upcoming months. Former Rep. L.F. Payne (D-Va.), who serves as president of McGuireWoods’ consulting branch, will handle the account. The firm posted its largest lobbying income last year at $4.6 million.

API sent four of the bill’s Senate sponsors donations from its PAC in the 2012 election cycle. The legislation’s main sponsor, Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) received $3,500, and the group gave Sen. Mark Begich (D-Alaska) a $5,000 gift. Two other sponsors received a combined $3,500 from the PAC.

The nation’s leading natural gas producer, Exxon Mobil, is also a big fan of Barrasso, making him its sixth biggest recipient of funds in the 2012 cycle; he pulled in $17,750 from the API member company’s PAC and individuals associated with the firm. Exxon also gave $10,000 each to bill cosponsors John Cornyn (R-Texas) and Roger Wicker (R-Miss.).

In 2013, so far, Exxon Mobil has been the biggest lobbying spender of the group, devoting $4.84 million to all of its federal lobbying efforts in the first quarter of the year.

On the other side, DOW’s PAC contributed to some of the same senators sponsoring the bill as Exxon Mobil did. The PAC, which set a new record for outlays at more than $800,000 last year, sent $2,000 to Barrasso, and it also contributed to three of the legislation’s other sponsors, including Sen. David Vitter (R-La.), who received $4,000.

DOW also posted record lobbying expenditures last year, spending nearly $12 million, and is on pace to eclipse that number this year.

DOW argues that the economic recovery may be on the line if exports are expanded. In testimony to the Senate Energy & Natural Resources Committee less than two weeks after the bill was introduced, the company’s chairman and CEO Andrew Liveris warned against increasing exports of LNG because it would result in higher prices and would disrupt manufacturing. “Continuing optimism for U.S. manufacturing is founded on the prospect of an adequate, reliable, and reasonably priced supply of natural gas,” DOW’s public statement said.

But Alan Jeffers, a spokesman for Exxon Mobil, turns the argument the other way. He argues that LNG is plentiful and leaves a smaller carbon footprint, and that “LNG exports will help increase U.S. economic growth, create jobs, and add to government tax revenues,” he wrote in an email.

The corporation has continued to press forward: It has partnered with Qatar Petroleum International on a proposed expansion of an LNG import-export facility in Texas that the companies say would increase LNG exports by 15.6 million tons per year.

And it funded a February report by three analysts at the Peterson Institute for International Economics that found the U.S. economy would in fact benefit from increased LNG exports. One of the authors, Reginald Jones Senior Fellow Gary Hufbauer, said in an interview that he believes expanded LNG exports will not have a significant effect on domestic pricing, despite the concerns of chemical companies.

“I think the impact has been much exaggerated, and I don’t think by denying exports you’re going to keep prices down at the low level,” Hufbauer said, adding that pressure will continue to increase for the development of LNG export projects.

But, while domestic natural gas producers may be encouraged, it appears that the lobbying fight is anything but over. In May, Rep. Mike Turner (R-Ohio) introduced a bill in the House that’s a companion to Barrasso’s.

This time, the energy companies are taking a new tack, asserting that, with more exports, the U.S. can break Russia and Iran’s lock on energy supplies in some parts of the world.

Except for the Revolving Door section, content on this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 United States License by OpenSecrets.org. To request permission for commercial use, please contact us.